Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/4004/2023 of PREETAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGHON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4004 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1.PREETAM S/O KAMAR SINGH YADAV, AGED 38Y E A R S , R/O VILLAGE GOLLANA P.S.SHAMSHABAD DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)Y E A R S , R/O VILLAGE GOLLANA P.S.SHAMSHABAD DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)
2.AMAR SINGH S/O BUNDEL SINGH YADAV, AGED78 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE GOLLANA, PS.SHAMSHABAD DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)78 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE GOLLANA, PS.SHAMSHABAD DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)3.LAXMAN SINGH S/O HALKU SINGH, AGED 63YEARS, R/O VILLAGE GOLLANA, PS.SHAMSHABAD DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)YEARS, R/O VILLAGE GOLLANA, PS.SHAMSHABAD DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)4.BALRAM S/O KAMAR SINGH YADAV, AGED 35Y E A R S , R/O VILLAGE GOLLANA, PS.SHAMSHABAD DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)Y E A R S , R/O VILLAGE GOLLANA, PS.SHAMSHABAD DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)5.GANGARAM S/O AMAR SINGH YADAV, AGED 43Y E A R S , R/O VILLAGE GOLLANA, PS.SHAMSHABAD DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)Y E A R S , R/O VILLAGE GOLLANA, PS.SHAMSHABAD DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)
6.VEERENDRA SINGH S/O AMAR SINGH YADAV,AGED 48 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE GOLLANA, PS.SHAMSHABAD DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)AGED 48 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE GOLLANA, PS.SHAMSHABAD DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)
7.KAMAR SINGH S/O BUNDEL SINGH YADAV, AGED73 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE GOLLANA, PS.SHAMSHABAD DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)73 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE GOLLANA, PS.SHAMSHABAD DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI DEVANSH MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANTS
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION SHAMSHABAD DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI I.S.ASTHANA - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by theappellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated25.02.2023 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda,District Vidisha in S.T.No.200138/2016, whereby the trial Court has acquittedall the appellants under Sections 294 and 506 (part-2) of IPC but has convictedthe appellants under Sections 147 IPC and sentenced them to undergo sixmonths RI and Section 148 IPC and sentenced them to undergo one month RIand under Sections 323/149 (two heads) of IPC and sentenced them to undergosix-six months with fine of Rs.1,000-1,000/- and under Section 325/149 IPCand sentenced them to undergo one-one year RI with fine of Rs.3,000-3,000/-,with default stipulations.
2 . Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No.1-Preetam Singh remained in custody for 14 days, appellant No.2-Amar Singhand appellant No.3-Laxman Singh for 5-5 days, appellant No.4-Balram for onemonth, appellant No.5-Gangaram, appellant No.6-Virendra and appellant No.7-Kamar Singh for about one-one month. He further submits that his only prayeris that fine amount may be enhanced.
3. Learned counsel for the State has no objection if sentence of appellants is converted to undergone.
4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal ofrecord and in considered view of this Court, conviction is affirmed but on thepoint of sentence, this appeal is partly allowed on the basis of sentenceundergone which is of 14 days in respect to appellant No.1, appellant No.2 andappellant No.3 for 5-5 days, appellant No.4 for one month, appellants No.5, 6and 7 for about one-one month, by setting aside jail sentence of the appellants,fine amount of the appellants under Section 323 IPC is maintained, underSection 147 IPC fine of Rs.1,000/- is imposed and under Section 148 IPC fineof Rs.1,000/- is imposed and fine amount under Section 325 IPC is enhancedfrom Rs.3,000/- to Rs.8,000/- and if fine amount as imposed by the trial Courthas already been deposited by the appellants, same be adjusted. If appellantsdeposit fine amount as directed hereinabove within a period of 30 days from thedate of receipt of certified copy of this order, as the jail sentence of appellantshas already been suspended, their bail bonds shall stand discharged and if theyfails to deposit the fine amount, they have to undergo total jail sentence of fourmonths. Earlier the learned trial Court has awarded compensation amount ofRs.20,000/- to be paid to injured-Farukh and Rs.5,000-5,000/- to Shaukat andShahin. This Court directs to pay additional compensation of Rs.20,000/- toinjured-Farukh and additional Rs.5,000-5,000/- to injured Shaukat and Shahinby the appellants as compensation.
6. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of and rest of the impugnedjudgment is kept intact.
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned forinformation.
Adnan
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)JUDGE